State Superintendent of Educ. v. Ala. Educ. Ass'n, an Ala. Nonprofit Corp.
Decision Date | 25 October 2013 |
Docket Number | 1110413. |
Citation | 144 So.3d 265 |
Parties | STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION et al. v. ALABAMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, an Alabama nonprofit corporation, et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and John C. Neiman, Jr., deputy atty. gen., and James W. Davis, asst. atty. gen., for appellants Luther Strange, Dr. Thomas Bice, Susan Yvette Price, Scott Anderson, Ashley M. Rich, Robert T. Treese III, and Brian McVeigh.
Albert L. Jordan and Susan E. McPherson of Wallace Jordan Ratliff & Brandt, LLC, Birmingham; and Algert S. Agricola of Ryals, Plummer, Donaldson, Agricola & Smith, P.C., Montgomery, for appellants Governor Robert Bentley, Finance Director Marquita Davis, and Comptroller Thomas L. White, Jr.; and Cooper Shattuck, legal advisor to Governor Robert Bentley.
J. Cecil Gardner of The Gardner Firm, P.C., Mobile; Sam Heldman of The Gardner Firm, P.C., Washington, D.C.; and Robert D. Segall of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, PA, Montgomery, for appellees Alabama Education Association, Alabama Voice of Teachers for Education, Pam Hill, Cathey McNeal, Jeff Breece, Chassity Smith, Dorothy Strickland, and Ronald Slaughter.
Robert W. Weaver of Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rouco, LLC, Birmingham; Leslie J. Horton, Birmingham; and Douglas L. Steele of Woodley & McGillivary, Washington, D.C., for appellees International Association of Fire Fighters et al.
Joe Espy III and J. Flynn Mozingo of Melton, Espy & Williams, PC, Montgomery, for amici curiae Alabama State Employees Association (“ASEA”) and Sea–Pac, formerly known as the State Employees Association Political Action Committee, in support of the Alabama Education Association (“AEA”) and the Alabama Voice of Teachers for Education (“A–Vote”).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has certified two questions to this Court pursuant to Rule 18, Ala. R.App. P.
In Davis v. Alabama Education Ass'n, 92 So.3d 737 (Ala.2012), this Court summarized the facts underlying this litigation:
“Employees of the State of Alabama are paid through the office of the comptroller. Subject to certain conditions, § 36–1–4.3, Ala.Code 1975, provides that the comptroller may make deductions from the salary of a State employee upon the employee's request. Specifically, § 36–1–4.3(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides:
“
“Section 36–1–4.4, Ala.Code 1975, prescribes other procedures relating to the salary deductions authorized in § 36–1–4.3:
“
“On July 1, 2010, the comptroller implemented a new policy regarding salary deductions. Under this new policy, the comptroller stopped executing salary deductions designated for contributions to [the Alabama State Employees Association Political Action Committee]; the comptroller continued making deductions designated for the payment of dues to the [Alabama State Employees Association]. Likewise, the comptroller stopped executing salary deductions to a political-action committee affiliated with the Alabama State Troopers Association. Portions of an employee's salary no longer deducted as a result of this policy change were included in the employee's paychecks.
“The comptroller's change in the manner of executing salary deductions caused the AEA [the Alabama Education Association] to inquire of the comptroller whether a similar policy change in deductions would be made as to the salaries of State employees who elected to have contributions deducted for the benefit of the AEA. In conjunction with this inquiry, the comptroller was made aware that a portion of the deductions then being made for the benefit of the AEA were in turn contributed by the AEA to A–VOTE [AEA's political-action committee, Alabama Voice of Teachers for Education]. Because the comptroller could not ascertain what portion of the deductions designated for the AEA were passed on to A–VOTE, the comptroller ceased executing all salary deductions designated for the AEA on September 1, 2010.
“The comptroller based the aforesaid changes in the manner of executing salary deductions on his interpretation of the provisions in §§ 36–12–61 and 17–17–5, Ala.Code 1975. Section 36–12–61, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
“ ‘It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the State of Alabama to use or to permit to be used any state-owned property of any character or description, including stationery, stamps, office equipment, office supplies, automobiles or any other property used by him, in his custody or under his control for the promotion or advancement of the interest of any candidate for the nomination or election to any public office of the State of Alabama.’
“As then codified, § 17–17–5, Ala.Code 1975, provided in part that ‘[n]o person in the employment of the State of Alabama ... shall use any state ... funds, property, or time, for any political activities.’
“....
“Subsequently, in a special session, the legislature enacted, and the governor signed into law on December 20, 2010, Act No. 2010–761, Ala. Acts 2010 (‘the Act’). The Act amended § 17–17–5, Ala.Code 1975, to explicitly state as follows:
“ ‘(a) No person in the employment of the State of Alabama[, a county, a city, a local school board, or any other governmental agency, whether classified or unclassified,] shall use any state, county, city, local school board, or other governmental agency funds, property, or time, for any political activities.
“ ‘(b) No person in the employment of the State of Alabama[, a county, a city, a local school board, or any other governmental agency] may arrange by salary deduction or otherwise for any payments to a political action committee or arrange by salary deduction or otherwise for any payments for the dues of any person so employed to a membership organization which uses any portion of the dues for political activity....
“ ‘....
“ ” 92 So.3d at 739–43 (footnote omitted).1
On February 25, 2011, the Alabama Education Association (“the AEA”), Alabama Voice of Teachers for Education (“A–VOTE”), and six members of the AEA, namely, Pam Hill, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reprod. Health Servs. v. Strange
...of the statute as a whole and to Alabama's rules of statutory construction. In the case of State Superintendent of Education v. Alabama Education Association , 144 So.3d 265 (Ala.2013), the Alabama Supreme Court reiterated Alabama's "well settled rules of statutory construction" as follows:......
-
Ala. Educ. Ass'n v. Bentley (In re Hubbard)
...761. AEA I, 665 F.3d at 1237–39.After the Supreme Court of Alabama answered the certified questions, see Superintendent of Educ. v. Ala. Educ. Ass'n, 144 So.3d 265, 278 (Ala.2013), this Court held that Act 761 was neither overbroad nor void for vagueness, reversed the district court's order......
-
Swindle v. Remington
...(Ala. 2011), and the canon of ejusdem generis when interpreting phrases such as ‘otherwise gathers,’ State Superintendent of Educ. v. Ala. Educ. Ass'n, 144 So.3d 265, 274 (Ala. 2013). The phrase ‘otherwise gathers’ refers to gatherings without deliberation that are materially like the other......
-
S. States Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. Bentley
...their plain and ordinary meaning, and, reading the statute as a whole as we are required to do, State Superintendent of Education v. Alabama Education Ass'n , 144 So.3d 265, 272–73 (Ala.2013), we conclude that, in amending § 36-27-1(14), the legislature intended to allow only limited overti......